'We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Homosexuals'

  • metta

    Posts: 39161

    Nov 03, 2014 7:18 PM GMT
    'We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Homosexuals'


    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_we_reserve_the_right_to_refuse_service_to_homosexuals
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 8:04 PM GMT
    You forgot to mention, its Texass again and the scaries all came out, play on words much?

    Doing what they do best, "interpretation" gone wrong, nobody divides better than these people icon_rolleyes.gif

    Thousands Rally Against LGBT Rights In Houston
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/11/03/3587817/i-stand-sunday-anti-lgbt-rally/

    He explained that LGBT nondiscrimination protections are “special rights.” “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” he explained, “is about equal rights, not special rights.” During his remarks at the event, he added, “How can you call something equal when it divides? How can you call something right when it’s all wrong?”
  • Bowyn_Aerrow

    Posts: 357

    Nov 03, 2014 11:10 PM GMT
    Rights is a slippery problem. Freedom of speech protects both those who speak for and against a thing.

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?

    I can understand refusing to serve someone in say hospital as being a 'non-right' as it infringes on peoples right to do things like live.

    But chapels being forced to marry gays, restaurants and bed and breakfasts forced to serve LGBT?

    Is there right to refuse service any less important than our right to refuse service to the Phelps Church of Insanity?

    Would we in the LGBT community like to be told that we must, by law, cater an event for the 'God Hates Gays Crowd'?

    Personally I would just let the power of consumerism decide the fate of such businesses that refuse to serve LGBT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 1:58 AM GMT
    Bowyn_Aerrow saidRights is a slippery problem. Freedom of speech protects both those who speak for and against a thing.

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?

    I can understand refusing to serve someone in say hospital as being a 'non-right' as it infringes on peoples right to do things like live.

    But chapels being forced to marry gays, restaurants and bed and breakfasts forced to serve LGBT?

    Is there right to refuse service any less important than our right to refuse service to the Phelps Church of Insanity?

    Would we in the LGBT community like to be told that we must, by law, cater an event for the 'God Hates Gays Crowd'?

    Personally I would just let the power of consumerism decide the fate of such businesses that refuse to serve LGBT.


    In the bold in your post. Answer is no. The reasoning is not as simple as you suggest.

  • Bowyn_Aerrow

    Posts: 357

    Nov 04, 2014 2:45 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Bowyn_Aerrow said

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?



    In the bold in your post. Answer is no. The reasoning is not as simple as you suggest.



    Care to explain?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 4:01 AM GMT
    Bowyn_Aerrow said
    meninlove said
    Bowyn_Aerrow said

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?



    In the bold in your post. Answer is no. The reasoning is not as simple as you suggest.



    Care to explain?



    Most places, situations that require some type of "rule" refer to code violations of some number.. no shoes, no shirt, no service, no smoking, no saggy pants, no hoodies, no bags, no alcohol, no pets, no running, no diving, no cell phone, no camera, no cruising, no loud music..etc, No colored people, no fat women, no fat men, no disabled, no homosexuals do not apply here

    Race, Sex, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation are not code violations that require a "rule" in a place or situation, these are protected class and exempt from these types of imposed "rules", the individuals represented in each class could be subjected to follow these rules like everyone else, the "rules" do not apply to the class, only to the situation
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 4:33 AM GMT
    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php
    42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Nov 04, 2014 4:36 AM GMT
    Bowyn_Aerrow saidRights is a slippery problem. Freedom of speech protects both those who speak for and against a thing.

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?

    I can understand refusing to serve someone in say hospital as being a 'non-right' as it infringes on peoples right to do things like live.

    But chapels being forced to marry gays, restaurants and bed and breakfasts forced to serve LGBT?

    Is there right to refuse service any less important than our right to refuse service to the Phelps Church of Insanity?

    Would we in the LGBT community like to be told that we must, by law, cater an event for the 'God Hates Gays Crowd'?

    Personally I would just let the power of consumerism decide the fate of such businesses that refuse to serve LGBT.


    People can say whatever they want, but they can't discriminate if they run a business that serves the public. Change gay to Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks or Asians or Italians or Irish and *maybe* you'll get the point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 5:51 PM GMT
    theantijock saidhttp://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php
    42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


    In our country that includes sexual orientation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 7:19 PM GMT
    The legislababble reads "any place of public accommodation"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2014 9:12 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    theantijock saidhttp://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php
    42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


    In our country that includes sexual orientation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms


    Yeah, I think I vaguely remember you guys getting that. And we don't even have marriage nationally yet. So the fight continues. We'll get it (marriage and full civil rights). But there's still some pain to come and even after that constant vigilance.

    And not only constant vigilance but then, as I've been saying, the future liberated generations will have the responsibility to export the free expression of sexual orientation outside our borders to wherever our brothers are oppressed, to wherever gay people are born, be it Uganda, Russia, Jaimaica, the middle East, wherever we are not considered and treated as full human beings.

    That must be our continuing cause or our fight is lost even given our gains.
  • ai82

    Posts: 183

    Nov 04, 2014 9:45 PM GMT
    Bowyn_Aerrow saidRights is a slippery problem. Freedom of speech protects both those who speak for and against a thing.

    Do not people have a right to refuse service to anyone in most places/situations?

    I can understand refusing to serve someone in say hospital as being a 'non-right' as it infringes on peoples right to do things like live.

    But chapels being forced to marry gays, restaurants and bed and breakfasts forced to serve LGBT?

    Is there right to refuse service any less important than our right to refuse service to the Phelps Church of Insanity?

    Would we in the LGBT community like to be told that we must, by law, cater an event for the 'God Hates Gays Crowd'?

    Personally I would just let the power of consumerism decide the fate of such businesses that refuse to serve LGBT.


    Exactly. Unless the service is absolutely necessary, why give your money to people who hate you?
  • Bowyn_Aerrow

    Posts: 357

    Nov 05, 2014 1:35 AM GMT
    waccamatt said

    People can say whatever they want, but they can't discriminate if they run a business that serves the public. Change gay to Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks or Asians or Italians or Irish and *maybe* you'll get the point.


    I get that aspect.

    But I have to wonder if people just posted 'No gays allowed' at their shop window if it just wouldn't be better over all for allowing us to just take our money elsewhere. Same applies to all other minorities.

    How well would a business fair if its clientele knew that the owner was just biased and bigoted?

    Chikafick or whatever that place is called, did see some loss of customers when they got all anti-gay. This suggests to me that public opinion and unwillingness to throw money at a place that discriminates is likely to send a clearer message.

    It is my understanding that 'pro-gay' tolerance, etc is in the lead as a majority. Was that accomplished by legislation or through awareness campaigns and people just being exposed to the idea that hating a person 'because' isn't good enough?

    I have to wonder what kind of impact that mandatory 'We won't serve __________(list minorities)' sign be put up in the shop window would have.

    People are at the point where they don't want to be thought of as a bigot, so would they be less prone to shop at such as shop because they want to be politically correct and appear to be 'tolerant' (at the every least)?


    Perhaps my thinking is just to wild and extreme, or way in left field... IDK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 1:43 AM GMT
    Allowing someone to have a false belief system / cult / religion is not the same as bigotry.

    Ask any Indian. Ask any female. Ask any black man.

    False belief systems are what they are, and, your right to subscribe to them stops at my front door, and in public places. We are a SECULAR country by design. Amendment 1 is not about justifying discrimination via a false belief systems. Amendment 1 is about not having a state prescribed false belief system such as in Iran. Amendment 1 is also about the freedom of dissent from the MINORITY.

    This same crap, and it is CRAP, was used against Hispanics, Indians, and Blacks, on in a suppressive efforts, and...it's wrong by any real, truthful, moral compass.

    Amendment 4 says that we are equal.

    These "Jim Crow" notions will never pass federal muster, even in Texas.

    One religion believes that anyone who would express a different should be killed. We all know which false belief system that is.

    False belief systems are a clear, and present, danger to us all.

    VOTE. I did today. Did you?

    FYI, fully 1/3 of The U.S. is secular, but, they're quietly pushed aside by nut cases. Reality is, that, as we become more educated, we're less inclined to subscribe to false belief systems. Just the facts. False belief systems play upon the ignorant. We can't let them dominate our liberties, nor our lifestyle. You want that? Leave. Go to Iran.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 2:15 AM GMT
    Bowyn_Aerrow said...I have to wonder if people just posted 'No gays allowed' at their shop window if it just wouldn't be better over all for allowing us to just take our money elsewhere. Same applies to all other minorities...


    colored-only-sign.jpg
    s_nf_10254_35353.jpg
    no-gays-allowed.jpg
    c-restrooms-whiteonly.jpg
    polls_nosigns9xd_0630_508850_answer_10_x

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Nov 08, 2014 2:07 PM GMT
    As a Classical Liberal who believes in free speech, I agree with them.

    Of course they "reserve the right" (it's not strictly a "right" to not serve someone, but never mind that) to not serve me because I like cock.

    But ultimately they are at a disadvantage. Their refusal (due to their "rights") to serve me means that they've lost a customer, thus meaning that they won't get any money.

    Sorry to use the cliche but to be perfectly frank: the joke's on them.